I would consider it a fluid democracy more than a total anarchy ,they elect groups to perform a task then when the task is done the group is dissolved to prevent anyone from forming a power base and becoming corrupted. They do have rule of law.

Anarchy is lack of government, not lack of law. Even without government basic laws of human nature still hold, and the slightly more advanced rules needed for a peaceful society dont need a government to enforce them.

The new autonomous government is composed of councils elected directly by the people. This community administration is leading an effort to plant thousands of new trees. The community has since seen a crime rate of nearly zero. Following lengthy legal battles, the Mexican government is treating autonomous Cherán as a legal self-governing indigenous community.

This is direct democracy, and one of the best arguments for the Second Amendment I have ever seen.

Government by consensus is a common indigenous model. If you read Alvin Josephy's The Nez Perce Indians and the Opening of the Northwest you will see that is the way they worked. The "chief" was not a king, but a public servant. He might have inherited the position from his father, but that was because he apprenticed for the position. If he recommended the correct course of action, the tribe would follow. If he was wrong, they'd tell him so and pick someone else, or just ignore him. "Chief Joseph" is oft-quoted, mostly from statements he made before Congress. Many people have noticed how eloquent some Native American speakers were. This eloquence was necessary to their role in their societies. They had to argue well in order to achieve a consensus.